Alright alright, I can already hear you groan through the screen as you realize I've written, once again, another article on ASHRAE 90.1 and building envelope commissioning (BECx).
Well fear not, my readers, because this is not another blog equivalent to me snuggling up to my copy of an energy code-adopted 90.1 Standard. I actually have a complicated, if not toxic, relationship with this whole code adoption 90.1 business. Hence, the title of this article.
You don't get a gold star for meeting code…
I'm sure you've probably heard the saying that “a code-minimum building is the worst building you're legally allowed to build.” You get no gold stars for meeting code. It is literally the bare minimum expectation. It is a C passing grade. Would you want to eat at a restaurant that got a C rating from the health department? Probably not. Well, maybe, depending on the specials. But realistically we all know that a C grade is not an impressive feat. Neither is meeting code minimums.
While the adoption of high-performance standards and the evolution towards codified high-performance buildings is the intention of recent ASHRAE 90.1 adoptions, the general industry vibe about meeting code is still to do the least that you need to for legal compliance. And, I fear, this mentality will only increase as codes become more ambitious.
That brings us to a commissioning conundrum because, when it comes to BECx, doing the bare minimum will accomplish close to nothing. “Doing the minimum” actually goes completely against the ethos of BECx, which is that it should be an owner-driven, owner-elected, value-add process, not a prescriptive mandated thing that everybody's just trying to white-knuckle through to get their building permit and certificate of occupancy. There’s a code minimum BECx scope that checks some boxes and gives the project team a slap on the back, and there’s a BECx scope that will actually yield realized and quantifiable results: buildings that last longer, cost less money to operate, are more comfortable to be in, and reduce environmental impact.
Minimum requirements and building envelope commissioning should not be used in the same sentence. So while on one hand I'm in favor of commissioning being a code requirement because it’s forcing more experts into more rooms (which is how we advance as a society in general), it's also kind of a bummer that BECx is now included in the same governing standards that tell you how many inches of insulation you need in a roof and what kind of paperwork you need to provide in your permitting documentation. It’s inherently reductive.
While the BECx scope implied by ASHRAE 90.1 is decent(ish), it is not desired, practiced, nor enforced sufficiently to have much of an impact on building envelope performance across the industry. You can pretty much pass code with a single ramshackle design review at 90% CD and a few pencil-whipped checklists filled out during construction, and AHJs won’t bat an eye. Conversely, a BECx scope that’s worth anything will start in early design (ideally predesign!), include multiple iterative rounds of 3rd party review, and involve a robust BECx Plan and Specification. BECx site visits during construction should be frequent (like more than 3, c’mon), and the verification and testing activities should occur throughout installation, not just at the end. The owner sets the tone at project inception as a BECx proponent, and the project team participates in the process from start to finish.
How can we achieve that kind of rigor for a code minimum process? Well, we can’t. Unless…the building owner wants to.
... but you might get a gold star for being an engaged Owner.
Commissioning buildings just for the sake of code compliance is nearly pointless. At best, code-minimum BECx is a tedious process for marginal reward, and at worst it’s a waste of both time and money. BECx will never be effective if owners don’t truly want us in the room.
BECx is barely worth a dime if the owner doesn’t engage or appreciate the process…regardless of code requirements. Code compliance is simply not going to be your ticket to a well-commissioned project and a fantastic building. And really, this idea applies to ALL commissioning, whether it's governed by energy code, LEED, or whatever other lengthy list of project requirements you need to check off The List.
You Can’t Codify Caring
I won’t sit here and argue that codifying BECx isn’t a step in the right direction. We have to start somewhere. Architecture is complicated. Construction is complicated. Buildings are complicated. Everything costs a bunch of money. Even more money if you’re doing it right. I get it. But let’s not fool ourselves that throwing some 3rd party verification requirements into the energy code is going to make a massive difference in building performance if compliance with bare minimum performance requirements (aka CODE) is the one and only goal. A code-minimum building is nothing special (dare I say it could even be awful). Same goes for BECx.